View more on these topics

Call to ban phone sales sparks row

The Society of Equity Release Ad-visers has defended its call to ban telephone sales of equity release although it admits the model is used well by large firms.

The equity release advisers’ trade body submitted its response to the Financial Services Authority’s Mortgage Market Review last week.

SERA wants to see more mea-sures put in place to protect equity release customers including a ban on phone sales and an alteration to equity release permissions.

The thinking behind the ban is that face-to-face advisers can assess mental capacity and tackle con-cerns that home owners taking out equity release plans over the phone may be doing so under duress.

Simon Chalk, chairman of SERA, says the recommendations are not meant as an attack on the phone-based business model.

He says: “By definition, if that is a firm’s chosen model it has got to get it right and have robust procedures in place – large firms do this. Our comments are aimed at smaller independent brokers who sell one or two mortgages by phone and don’t get it right. We are here to promote higher standards and that is what this measure is aimed at.”

But the proposal has provoked criticism from the equity release industry.

Tim Loy, chief executive of Age Partnership, which offers phone-based equity release advice, says using this model means conversations between clients and advisers can be recorded for training and compliance purposes.

Andrea Rozario, director-general of Safe Home Income Plans, says: “In this industry we are guilty of assuming that once people get over a certain age they are incapable of making decisions. We tend to treat customers as a homogenous group which is wholly inaccurate.

“Clients want to deal with their finances in the way that is best for them. We need to develop as an industry that caters to those choices. The bottom line is that phone-based advice services wouldn’t survive if there wasn’t a need for them.”

And Dean Mirfin, group director at Key Retirement Solutions, says: “It comes down to a question of access to advice, and to limit this is prejudicial.”

Recommended

Rebrand or not, I will only use RBS as a last resort

How does the Royal Bank of Scotland, despite its recent rebranding, expect brokers to use it when it is still aggressively dual pricing? The following scenario seems to illustrate the problem nicely. I had an enquiry for an 80% LTV tracker and the client ended up going direct to NatWest. The rates are as follows: […]

2

Mortgage Times still not in administration

The Mortgage Times Group has still not been placed in administration almost a month after it was claimed that an application had been made.Mortgage Times staff were originally told by management that the network had been placed in administration on December 21. HM Revenue & Customs also filed a winding-up petition back in November in […]

Cricket - thumbnail

England vs Australia: pensions

Well, the cricket season is here, and England and Australia are stepping up to the wicket. Although we compete with each other in the sporting world, when it comes to pensions, Australia’s pension programme is held up as a model for our auto-enrolment initiative. Auto-enrolment was introduced because people weren’t saving enough into their pensions, and it is still early days but signs are positive. However, in Australia, saving into a pension is compulsory, and in fact employers are the ones who have to pay in. Employees in Australia can make additional contributions into their pensions, but they don’t have to. Should the onus be on the employer or employee to save? Well in the UK we think it’s both, but to get ‘adequate’ savings for retirement it’s the employee who has to pay more in.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up